Obama Administration Defends Health Care Overhaul in First Supreme Court Brief - Polidicks

Obama Administration Defends Health Care Overhaul in First Supreme Court Brief January 06, 2012 FOX [release]Arguing that President Obama's health care law was designed to fix an intractable national problem of exploding costs during a crisis, the administration submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court Friday defending the law as both necessary and constitutional. The 63-page brief is the first salvo in one of four cases accepted by the high court challenging the controversial health care law. Those cases will be heard in March. This filing is specifically focused on the suit challenging the law's so-called individual mandate, or requirement to buy health insurance. Critics of the law, including the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck it down, contend the Affordable Care Act goes too far in forcing Americans to obtain insurance or face a financial penalty. The government continued to argue that the law is permissible under the Constitution's Commerce Clause allowing the feds to regulate economic activity in the states. "As Congress found, the minimum coverage provision is thus necessary to achieve Congress's concededly valid objective of reforming the interstate market in health insurance," wrote Solicitor General Don Verrilli. Those reforms include forcing insurance providers to relax their coverage standards and ultimately make their coverage more affordable. Without the premiums coming in from all people now forced into the system, the law collapses. "The minimum coverage provision is key to the viability of the Act," Verrilli said, calling the law's focus on the insurance aspect of health care eminently reasonable. A fundamental question before the court is whether this law, or any, can force Americans to buy something or face a penalty. Opponents say that's a step too far for the government to take. In this instance, they say the government can't force Americans who choose not to buy health insurance into paying for coverage. In separate briefs, Florida and 25 other states urged the Supreme Court to throw out the entire health care law if the individual mandate is struck down. Dozens of GOP senators also filed a brief critical of the law. The administration contends that health care is unique because all people, regardless of their insurance coverage, must eventually participate in the health care marketplace and that the collective costs from the uninsured drive up the costs for the rest -- $1,000 per family, according to the government. Verrilli said "this is classic economic regulation of economic conduct." Another issue before the court in this case is how to punish people who don't obtain insurance. The law says people are to be penalized for non-participation. Opponents say there is no justification for such a penalty. They wonder how else could the government punish citizens, be it for not eating a certain vegetable or any number of non-actions. It's a non-issue, according to government. "That Congress used the word 'penalty' in the minimum coverage provision, rather than 'tax,' is immaterial to whether it was a proper exercise of Congress's power over taxation," Verrilli explained. In a background discussion with reporters before the brief was submitted, a senior administration official answered critics, saying it is "wildly unrealistic" that Congress would pass, for instance, a compulsory broccoli consumption law. The key, he argued, is that the health care law is specifically targeted to the economics of 17.6 percent of the U.S. economy, and is therefore covered under the Commerce Clause. The response from the 26 states and others challenging the individual mandate is due next month. Two other primary briefs are expected at the court Friday in the cases challenging whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act can survive if the individual mandate is struck down and whether federal tax law prohibits litigation until the ACA goes into effect.[/release] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/06/obama-administration-makes-health-care-overhaul-case-to-supreme-court[/url] Alt Source:[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/new-briefs-preview-supreme-court-clash-over-health/]New briefs preview Supreme Court clash over health care[/url] [b]Washington Times[/b]

I wonder if the Suprem Court shoots it down if Obama will go all Jacksonian "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

-snip-

Wait, wait, wait. Isn't the healthcare overhaul GOOD for Americans? Shit, taxes don't need to be raised, the money can simply be diverted from the military budget.

[QUOTE=archangel125;34090363]Wait, wait, wait. Isn't the healthcare overhaul GOOD for Americans? Shit, taxes don't need to be raised, the money can simply be diverted from the military budget.[/QUOTE] It is good for Americans; Republicans don't want you to know that though.

If requiring people to get health insurance is unconstitutional, then so is requiring people to get auto insurance. [sp]was signed into a relatives account by accident. hence the above snip[/sp]

Glaber you've wasted two years posting obama is bad articles how are you so motivated to continue doubtful that this will get struck down but stranger things have happened

Glaber, you know what's funny? Half the time when Fox News attempts to make Obama look bad, they actually end up making him look damn good. Even worse, they end up making themselves look so stupid they couldn't possibly be taken seriously, like the time they published the results of a study that showed that 'college makes people more liberal'.

[QUOTE=archangel125;34090457]Glaber, you know what's funny? Half the time when Fox News attempts to make Obama look bad, they actually end up making him look damn good. Even worse, they end up making themselves look so stupid they couldn't possibly be taken seriously, like the time they published the results of a study that showed that 'college makes people more liberal'.[/QUOTE] He also sourced the Washington Post.

I can't believe it. For the first time, the ridiculous term "Obamacare" isn't being used by Fox or Glaber.

My only opposition to a nationalized healthcare system like that of most of Europe and Canada is the simple fact that the government can't even pay for the programs we already have. It will, inevitably as the sun rising in the east every morning, end up underfunded and full of loopholes and stipulations. Which sucks. Because I could use it. I can't afford third party insurance, nobody I apply to is willing to even so much as call back and say "We're sorry but we don't need you working for us at this time" so I can't obtain work-provided insurance, and even if I managed to get it chances are the stuff I need wouldn't be covered. Oi. Figure out how the hell we're gonna pay for it without massive tax hikes, Washington, and I'm on board. It would literally directly benefit me, but only if it's funded properly.

[QUOTE=TestECull;34090978]My only opposition to a nationalized healthcare system like that of most of Europe and Canada is the [B]simple fact that the government can't even pay for the programs we already have[/B]. It will, inevitably as the sun rising in the east every morning, end up underfunded and full of loopholes and stipulations.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. There is nothing to suggest that social services administered properly (See: Norway) will inevitably fall apart.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34091248]Citation needed. There is nothing to suggest that social services administered properly (See: Norway) will inevitably fall apart.[/QUOTE] I know you already know this, but with the amount the United States spend on healthcare, everyone [I]should[/I] be completely covered It's just that the screwed up model with private sector areas like insurance companies manage to be more bloated and inefficient than anything else in the world [editline]7th January 2012[/editline] Also social services work fine for many countries. They're not the verge of collapse.

[QUOTE=Contag;34091376]I know you already know this, but with the amount the United States spend on healthcare, everyone [I]should[/I] be completely covered[/QUOTE] Naturally.

[quote]Figure out how the hell we're gonna pay for it without massive tax hikes, Washington, and I'm on board.[/quote] [quote]The fundamental cause [of allocative inefficiency] is a combination of high prices for inputs, poorly restrained incentives for overutilization, and a tendency to adopt expensive medical innovations rapidly, even when evidence of effectiveness is weak or absent.[/quote] [quote]Perhaps the greatest hope for improving both allocative and productive efficiency will come from efforts to measure and reward accurately outcome productivity – improving health outcomes using cost-effective management of diseases – rather than rewarding on basis of unit service productivity for profitable stents, caesarian-sections, and diagnostic imaging regardless of their impact on health outcomes. This will require rethinking what we pay physicians and hospitals for and most importantly how to measure and pay for outcomes rather than inputs. [/quote] Basically your insurance agencies take a huge chunk, the doctors take more than most, and then use the most expensive techniques (even if it's not necessary) That paper calls for changing the system from paying for, say, 20 MRIs, to paying for the healthiest outcome (with obviously some measure of restitution for the 20 MRIs) [editline]7th January 2012[/editline] [quote][B]INEFFICIENCIES IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND KEY ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL HEALTH CARE REFORM[/B] While the American health care system has many virtues, it is also plagued by substantial inefficiencies and market failures. Some of the strongest evidence of such inefficiencies comes from the tremendous variation across states in Medicare spending per enrollee, with no evidence of corresponding variations in either medical needs or outcomes. These large variations in spending suggest that up to 30 percent of health care costs (or about 5 percent of GDP) could be saved without compromising health outcomes. Likewise, the differences in health care expenditures as a share of GDP across countries, without corresponding differences in outcomes, also suggest that health care expenditures in the United States could be lowered by about 5 percent of GDP by reducing inefficiency in the current system. The sources of inefficiency in the U.S. health care system include payment systems that reward medical inputs rather than outcomes, high administrative costs, and inadequate focus on disease prevention. Market imperfections in the health insurance market create incentives for socially inefficient levels of coverage. For example, asymmetric information causes adverse selection in the insurance market, making it difficult for healthy people to receive actuarially reasonable rates. CEA’s findings on the state of the current system lead to a natural focus on two key components of successful health care reform: (1) a genuine containment of the growth rate of health care costs, and (2) the expansion of insurance coverage. Because slowing the growth rate of health care costs is a complex and difficult process, we describe it in general terms and give specific examples of the types of reforms that could help to accomplish the necessary outcomes. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SLOWING HEALTH CARE COST GROWTH The central finding of this report is that genuine health care reform has substantial benefits. CEA estimates that slowing the growth of health care costs would have the following key effects: It would raise standards of living by improving efficiency. Slowing the growth rate of health care costs by increasing efficiency raises standards of living by freeing up resources that can be used to produce other desired goods and services. The effects are roughly proportional to the degree of cost containment. It would prevent disastrous budgetary consequences and raise national saving. Because the Federal government pays for a large fraction of health care, lowering the growth rate of health care costs causes the budget deficit to be much lower than it otherwise would have been (assuming that the savings are dedicated to deficit reduction). The resulting rise in national saving increases capital formation. Together, these effects suggest that properly measured GDP could be more than 2 percent higher in 2020 than it would have been without reform and almost 8 percent higher in 2030. The real income of the typical family of four could be $2,600 higher in 2020 than it otherwise would have been and $10,000 higher in 2030. And, the government budget deficit could be reduced by 3 percent of GDP relative to the no-reform baseline in 2030. It would lower unemployment and raise employment in the short and medium runs. When health care costs are rising more slowly, the economy can operate at a lower level of unemployment without triggering inflation. Our estimates suggest that the unemployment rate may be lower by about one-quarter of a percentage point for an extended period of time as a result of serious cost growth containment. [B]THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF EXPANDING COVERAGE[/B] The report identifies three important impacts of expanding health care coverage: It would increase the economic well-being of the uninsured by substantially more than the costs of insuring them. A comparison of the total benefits of coverage to the uninsured, including such benefits as longer life expectancy and reduced financial risk, and the total costs of insuring them (including both the public and private costs), suggests net gains in economic well-being of about two-thirds of a percent of GDP per year. It would likely increase labor supply. Increased insurance coverage and, hence, improved health care, is likely to increase labor supply by reducing disability and absenteeism in the work place. This increase in labor supply would tend to increase GDP and reduce the budget deficit. It would improve the functioning of the labor market. Coverage expansion that eliminates restrictions on pre-existing conditions improves the efficiency of labor markets by removing an important limitation on job-switching. Creating a well-functioning insurance market also prevents an inefficient allocation of labor away from small firms by leveling the playing field among firms of all sizes in competing for talented workers in the labor market. The CEA report makes clear that the total benefits of health care reform could be very large if the reform includes a substantial reduction in the growth rate of health care costs. This level of reduction will require hard choices and the cooperation of policymakers, providers, insurers, and the public. While there is no guarantee that the policy process will generate this degree of change, the benefits of achieving successful reform would be substantial to American households, businesses, and the economy as a whole.[/quote]

So, before I make an ass of myself, what was the overhaul supposed to do?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34093626]So, before I make an ass of myself, what was the overhaul supposed to do?[/QUOTE] They're referring to the health care reforms referred to as Obamacare consisting of the Affordable Care Act and the other one so the stuff you already know about

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34093626]So, before I make an ass of myself, what was the overhaul supposed to do?[/QUOTE]Make America's nationalized healthcare work. But various speedbumps by Republican stalls and the general idiocy of the democrats in preventing them despite a total majority fucked it up, big time.

I don't like that the mandate forces you to get insurance but they don't provide a public option. And I bet their subsidies don't even cover all the costs, that would be such a ripoff.

[QUOTE=archangel125;34090363]Wait, wait, wait. Isn't the healthcare overhaul GOOD for Americans? Shit, taxes don't need to be raised, the money can simply be diverted from the military budget.[/QUOTE] But it's god dang socialism, you don't want to let these red commie bastards take over your good ol' pride capitalist and hurt the interests of the private insurance companies, even though they fail to deliver proper health care all the time, do you ?

I really don't like that you're being forced to get Healthcare, even if it is being made affordable, what about the lower classes that still can't afford it? Either way they lose.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34090377]If requiring people to get health insurance is unconstitutional, then so is requiring people to get auto insurance. [sp]was signed into a relatives account by accident. hence the above snip[/sp][/QUOTE] Except nobody is forcing you to get auto insurance. You don't [I]have[/I] to have a car and you don't [I]have[/I] to drive on public roads.

[quote]The administration contends that health care is unique because all people, regardless of their insurance coverage, must eventually participate in the health care marketplace and that the collective costs from the uninsured drive up the costs for the rest -- $1,000 per family, according to the government. Verrilli said "this is classic economic regulation of economic conduct."[/quote] sounds like your regular taxation to me except if the government forced you to buy from the private sector, instead of stealing your money and blowing it on the F-35 program

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34091248]Citation needed. There is nothing to suggest that social services administered properly (See: Norway) will inevitably fall apart.[/QUOTE] You need a citation? Open your eyes for five seconds. The government underfunds EVERYTHING. NASA, postal service, infrastructure, social security, medicare, medicaid, hell even the military it's so triggerhappy with isn't funded properly! It can't even fund the things it wants, where the hell do you think it's gonna cough up the dosh for state-provided health care? Maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but I don't believe the government could fund buying a soda out of a vending machine properly. They'd find a way to fuck up a transaction totaling one dollar. I'd love for them to figure it out, a system like what Canada uses would literally directly benefit me greatly and I'd be all for it. But I don't want it if the government can't pay for it, because if they can't pay for it it's going to turn out absolutely useless. Proof of this can be seen in every public program it currently runs. Because they're all horribly underfunded. [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34094565]Except nobody is forcing you to get auto insurance. You don't [I]have[/I] to have a car and you don't [I]have[/I] to drive on public roads.[/QUOTE] You do if you want to live in a building that's less than three stories tall. The only way you can get away with living without a car in America is by living in the downtown area of a big city. If you're not living in a high-rise you're out of the reach of cheap and regular public transit, erego, you need some sort of car or motorcycle of your own.

[QUOTE=TestECull;34094870]You do if you want to live in a building that's less than three stories tall. The only way you can get away with living without a car in America is by living in the downtown area of a big city. If you're not living in a high-rise you're out of the reach of cheap and regular public transit, erego, you need some sort of car or motorcycle of your own.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. Its not an absolutely unavoidable thing, there ARE alternatives... they just may or may not suck. [QUOTE=Contag;34095040]the auto insurance analogy isn't that applicable anyway because a car is a choice needing medical care isn't, and everyone needs it at some point[/QUOTE] Exactly.

the auto insurance analogy isn't that applicable anyway because a car is a choice needing medical care isn't, and everyone needs it at some point

[QUOTE=Contag;34095040]the auto insurance analogy isn't that applicable anyway because a car is a choice needing medical care isn't, and everyone needs it at some point[/QUOTE] Not to mention getting auto insurance is up to the individual states.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34094565]Except nobody is forcing you to get auto insurance. You don't [I]have[/I] to have a car and you don't [I]have[/I] to drive on public roads.[/QUOTE] That sounds an awful lot like 'not having to take a job with an unlivable wage' back when there was no minimum wage, as in not really a choice at all. [editline]7th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;34094870]You need a citation? Open your eyes for five seconds. The government underfunds EVERYTHING. NASA, postal service, infrastructure, social security, medicare, medicaid, hell even the military it's so triggerhappy with isn't funded properly! It can't even fund the things it wants, where the hell do you think it's gonna cough up the dosh for state-provided health care?[/quote] For one, you are being overly cynical. For two, responding to the request for a source with 'open your eyes' probably isn't the best response.

I don't see the big problem with Auto insurance being a requirement for having a car that's driven on public roads. Mainly because that's mandatory in most parts of Europe. Corrupt insurance companies jacking up the price to unbelievable levels is the real problem.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34093626]So, before I make an ass of myself, what was the overhaul supposed to do?[/QUOTE] To be more specific than other posts in this thread, the Affordable Care Act was intended to adjust laws and expand federal coverage so that 30 million Americans spread across all 50 states who were making too much to qualify for Medicaid but were not making enough to pay for an acceptable health care plan would have access to proper care. It was a federal issue because of the widespread nature of the problem, and introduced the mandate because of the following logic- The public has the right to live, so the individual should not have the right to kill. The nation as a whole has the right to be healthy more than the individual has the right to be intentionally unhealthy. The public mandate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will result in much cheaper healthcare across the board, because of the increase in preventative care as opposed to emergency care. Preventative care is cheaper than emergency care, and having less people in the emergency room will clear space for actual emergencies. It works for everyone in a practical sense; the Republicans' main objection is based on principle.